Social Skills: Role versus Roll Play

[Cybern]

"Sorry, I can't do that. I have no ranks in diplomacy."

This is bad, but I think it's more of a problem when the DM doesn't accept good social rolls (with good roleplay). As in, we got into a ancient portal and ended up in Evermeet (in FR), and got caught by grim faced elves. I was a ½ Elven Cleric, with my Aasimar Cavalier friend, so we didn't look like enemies. We also were about 15th level, so we looked like we could do some real damage. We also had great diplomacy scores, and rolled them when they ordered us to get in our underwear and give them all our stuff so we could get in prison. We both rolled between 25-30, asking them to be friendlier (trying to keep our gear), but the DM said:

"Sorry, the law's the law, and these won't be fooled by your speech."

LAW? They're elves! And probably 1st level warriors at that, so why can't a 30 diplomacy check change their mind?

 

[tmaaas]

I like a game with a synthesis between roll-playing and role-playing.

Now, I can enjoy a game which is only roll-playing (and do: I started gaming as a wargamer, not a role-player). I can also enjoy a game which is only or predominantly role-playing. But in RPGs, I prefer the two well-mixed. (Hmmm, now I’m hungry for a Reeses: chocolate in my peanut butter and all that . . . )

It is frustrating to me as a player when a DM ignores role-playing with too great an emphasis on roll-playing. I want to know that clever ideas or good characterization can have an impact beyond what the dice say.

It is also frustrating to me as a player when a DM ignores roll-playing with too great an emphasis on role-playing. I want to know that my inability to role-play a social scene my character would have no trouble with will not doom me.

 

[Belen]

In that case, what did your characters say? If you said, "hey bub, be friendly." Then rolled your diplomacy, then I may have ruled against you as well.

That's the problem with social skills. That mechanic of the game shouldn't be all about the numbers.

Maybe I am remembering wrong, but in 2e, I had MORE roleplaying than I do now. I wonder if the flat numbers have had anything to do with it.

The current system just seems unfair to both players and GM, while adding some real complication. I actually want to use the skills more, but it just is not in my nature to roll without roleplaying. And it is completely boring on my end if someone just rolls a dice and then I provide the information.

Leads to a disatisfying game.

 

[bret]

Get this sort of problem all the time in other game systems.

When it isn't important to establish (or maintain) character, just roll and move on through. Shopping trips are rarely worth spending a lot of game time on.

When it is a dramatic or otherwise important scene, need to require both.

The best way to handle this that I've seen is for the character to roleplay the interaction and the GM to roll the appropriate social skill.

This way, you get an eloquent speach given to which the NPC (hostile reaction) says "Sorry, were you saying something? Didn't hear anything of interest to me. Why are you still here, anyways?"

On the other end of the scale, the GM would roll great and the player wimps out. The GM would do something like 'Joe seems really interested in what you have to say, and asks you to explain yourself further.'

Personally, I think it is more fun if the players put forth the effort. The GM should try to keep things interesting regardless of the roll, but still the skill of the character vs. the player has to be part of the success or failure to get what you want.

Also keep in mind, sometimes failure can be a more interesting story than success.

 

[Cybern]

BelenUmeria: Actually, it sounded more like some cop negotiator talk, where we told them we weren't ennemies, and would like too meet their leaders to find a way to get out of their sacred island. Only we won't take the chance of letting them have all our stuff (and holy symbol...) just because it is the law. We just tried to be accepted as ambassadors instead of criminals.

Oh, and the cavalier swore not to harm anybody, but he was clearly insulted about getting to jail and wait (long, these were elves), while he was a noble-born hero who saved many elven lives before.

I CAN'T roleplay a 30 diplomacy check result, or else the DM would have done all I asked

 

[Belen]

Cybern,

In that instant, I would agree with you as high level PCs should be able to talk their way out of jail, especially with such high diplomacy checks.

Now, as a GM, if it was ingrained at birth that intruders to the sacred island was sacriligious, then I may have had the guards become friendly with you, while still asking you to volunteer for prison, until my superiors could sort things out.

That establishes a good relationship with them and still allows your diplomacy to succeed.

Dave

 

[Kahuna Burger]

...
We also have a player who roleplays exceptionnally well, but gets mad when we tell him that his 9 Cha dwarf can't "just roleplay" his diplomacy. He too, with time, bought social skills for all his characters so that he could use his natural social skills in game.
...
I even tend to penalized (rolplay award xp) players who don't RP remotely their Cha (en Int and Wis, to some extent). I can't take another 18 Cha Pal who "just looks good, but acts like Squall" (from FF 8). "Whatever" ain't a diplomacy sentence, in my book.

One of the ways I deal with this is to say that Cha is NOT "how much people like you" its how strong your personality is. IRL, I know plenty of people with a "high charisma" (people notice them, they can intimidate, they have a strong sense of self) who the majority of people don't like. But they feel really strongly about how little they like them! They notice how little they like them RIGHT OFF THE BAT!

So the 9 charisma dwarf isn't neccassarily a jerk, and the fact he has few diplomacy ranks doesn't make him abrasive. He is a soft spoken guy who doesn't quite know the right way to start a conversation, but if he can get someone's attention and engage them for a while he can be just as well liked as anyone else. (hmmmm, I tend to date guys like that and like them a lot better in the long run than the high cha jerks... ) The 18 cha palidan isn't a wonderful affable guy, he's got an ego the size of texas, dominates every situation he is in, KNOWS just how good and lawful he is and tends to alienate people. But they are gonna be very aware of him. The low Cha guy who still tries to dominate every situation needs a little more GM work, but if you say "well, you talk a lot, but really don't hold their interest" enough, they should get the clue eventually that they can't be a noble leader without paying the points.

But thats just my take. I've seen some wonderful roleplaying where the character was trying to overcome his low 'interaction' stats and the player did that very well.

Kahuna burger

 

[billd91]

Maybe I am remembering wrong, but in 2e, I had MORE roleplaying than I do now. I wonder if the flat numbers have had anything to do with it.

The current system just seems unfair to both players and GM, while adding some real complication. I actually want to use the skills more, but it just is not in my nature to roll without roleplaying. And it is completely boring on my end if someone just rolls a dice and then I provide the information.

Leads to a disatisfying game.

I don't think the current system is unfair at all but if you want both role and roll playing (and I recommend both) then you've got to have the stones to make your players live up to it. If you're having less role-playing now, it's because your players have gotten lazy, not because the mechanics are different. Maybe the mechanics enable them to be lazy, but it's up to you to get them off their duffs and into role-playing.

I make use of both role and roll playing. I use roll playing because I don't want to be just arbitrary and because I don't want to penalize tongue-tied players who have charismatic PCs. It's the character doing the interaction in the game world and its his charisma that should count, not the player's. But, I expect the player to make an effort (whether they speak of the PC in 1st or 3rd person, I don't care. I consider both as roleplaying). If they just blow it off, guess what? Their attempt will fail. If give a half-hearted effort, they can roll but at -2 to -5. If they give an average attempt, full bonus. If they do really well at playing the character, they get a bonus of +2 to +5 (and sometimes, I'll make it an autosuccess if really good).

The way I see it, characters to make the choice to invest in the persuasive skills should see an in-game benefit when those skills are used. If I just relied on role-playing ability, then all of the PCs might as well invest in just combat and exploring oriented skills.

 

[Belen]

That's why I am thinking about creating a general class skill set. Maybe it would be best to have the social skills as class skills for all the classes and then have a charisma mechanic....

 

[TalonComics]

I think D&D skills start to break down when rolls head into the 30s. According to DCs versus what's rolled you're pretty much dominating every DC when you start rolling results in the 30s. So, with that being said how does a GM handle those kind of rolls?
Bluff, Spot, Listen, Diplomacy and Gather Information with a 30 plus roll will get you everything you want from the skill. It doesn't matter even if you have an 8 CHA you're going to get results from a 30 plus roll.
The problem I've been having is players who are just incapable of roleplaying anything but a shy guy who doesn't interact with people very well. He still tries to roleplay but to effectively make it work he has to add Diplomacy rolls to compensate.
I've seen the exact opposite problem as well where the player is a natural leader and the other players defer to their judgement but the character's CHA is horribly low with little or no social skills.

3e skills make it much harder (and easier) on GMs. They take a very role play oriented decision and base it on numbers. No GM wants a game where social situations depend on die rolls. A PC who just says "I roll diplomacy," is a nightmare. The entire flavor of the game is lost and the GM becomes the ultimate number cruncher. This happens to lead to zero fun for the GM. Heck, most GMs run games because they like to ROLEplay.

I think you're assuming too much here as I made this same mistake. I think you'll find just as many, and maybe even more, DMs who play D&D as a ROLL playing game and not a ROLE playing game. For many folks D&D is just a strategy game and nothing more. With all the emphasis WotC puts on minis and combat over character personality merits and flaws (which there are none) I'm pretty sure WotC feels their audience is more strategy oriented as well. Heck, just look at what the system is called versus what White Wolf calls their system. D20 System versus the Storyteller System.

Dice rolling is the norm and roleplaying is the backseat. :/

~Derek